Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning
От | Alvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20180407200034.o5okuigsfce6hbr7@alvherre.pgsql обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-04-07 08:13:23 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Andres Freund wrote: > > > I've also attempted to fix rhinoceros's failure I remarked upon a couple > > > hours ago in > > > https://postgr.es/m/20180406210330.wmqw42wqgiicktli@alap3.anarazel.de > > > > And this, too. I was unsure if this was because we were missing calling > > some object access hook from the new code, or the additional pruning. > > That's possible. I did attempt to skim the code, that's where my > complain about the docs originated. There certainly isn't an > InvokeFunctionExecuteHook() present. It's not clear to me whether > that's an issue - we don't invoke the hooks in a significant number of > places either, and as far as I can discern there's not much rule or > reason about where we invoke it. I managed to convince myself that it's not higher-level code's responsibility to invoke the execute hooks; the likelihood of bugs of omission seems just too large. But maybe I'm wrong. There's a small number of InvokeFunctionExecuteHook calls in the executor, but I really doubt that it exhaustively covers everyplace where catalogued functions are called in the executor. CC'ing KaiGai and Stephen Frost; they may want to chip in here. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: